M. K. Sharma ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order passedby the Disciplinary Authority imposing on the petitioner a penalty of reduction tothe lower post of Upper Division Clerk in pursuance of a departmental proceedingand also against the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 1. 4. 1977 rejectingthe appeal filed by the petitioner. ( 2 ) A departmental proceeding was instituted against the petitioner with fivecharges levelled aganst him. After the petitioner showed cause and his defence wasnot found adequate, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to go into the charges, oncompletion of which the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 19. 9. 1974 holdingthat the charges No. 1, 2,3 and 5 have been proved against the petitioner. As regardscharge No. 4, the Enquiry Officer held that it had been proved to the extent thatthe petitioner raised a loan of Rs. 7,000. 00 and Rs. 8,500. 00, without any priorpermission of the Competent Authority. The aforesaid report of the Enquiry Officerwas placed before the Disciplinary Authority, who after going through the sameagreed with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and issued a show causenotice to the petitioner alongwith a copy of the enquiry report. ( 3 ) ON receipt of the same, the petitioner submitted a reply to the show causenotice. "the Disciplinary Authority on consideration of the show cause filed by thepetitioner and on perusal of the materials on record felt that the penalty of dismissalfrom service would be rather too harsh and that imposing on the petitioner a lesserpenalty would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authorityreduced the penalty of dismissal from service to that of reduction to the lower postof Upper Division Clerk and imposed the said penalty on the petitioner. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid order imposing on him a punishment ofreduction in rank, the petitioner preferrred an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 11/01/1977 through the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation ofdelhi. A copy of the appeal petition is on record. The learned Counsel for thepetitioner has taken me through the grounds of appeal raised in his appeal/ petitionfiled before the Appellate Authority. ( 5 ) SUBSEQUENTLY by a letter lated 6. 5. 1977, the petitioner was informed that hisappealhad been considered and examined by the Commissioner in accordance withthe provisions of the Control and Appeal Regulations. The learned Counsel for thepetitioner has taken me through the grounds of appeal raised in his appeal/ petitionfiled before the Appellate Authority. ( 5 ) SUBSEQUENTLY by a letter lated 6. 5. 1977, the petitioner was informed that hisappealhad been considered and examined by the Commissioner in accordance withthe provisions of the Control and Appeal Regulations. Upon such consideration, thecommissioner passed an order stating, inter alia, that he had once again consideredthe Enquiry Report and examined the record of the Enquiry Officer and found thatthe appellant had failed to produce any fresh material point in his appeal as alsoduring the course of personal hearing which could warrant any change in theprevious order dated 6. 5. 1977 passed by him as Disciplinary Authority wherein hehad already taken a lenient view and reduced the proposed penalty of dismissalfrom service to that of reduction to the lower post of Upper Division Clerk. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the petitioner came to be rejected by the Commissioner sitting as the Appellate Authority over the order passed by him imposing onthe petitioner the penalty of reduction to the lower post of Upper Division Clerk. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits before me thatapart from commission of procedural violation in conducting the departmentalenquiry, the impugned action of imposing on the petitioner the penalty of reductionto the Grade of Upper Division Clerk was passed by an authority who was not thecompetent Authority as the Commissioner could not have acted as the Disciplinaryauthority in the case of the petitioner. The Counsel further submits that the orderpassed by the Appellate Authority is ex-fade illegal and was passed in violation ofthe principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, the Commissioner who acted as theappellate Authority of the petitioner also functioned as the Disciplinary Authorityand as such this said order is also liable to be set aside being illegal and in violationof the principles of natural justice. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the respondent admits that the orderpassed by the Appellate Authority could not be supported. She, however, statesthat the proper Appellate Authority would dispose of the appeal filed by thepetitioner in accordance with law if the matter is remitted back to him for disposalin accordance with law. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the respondent admits that the orderpassed by the Appellate Authority could not be supported. She, however, statesthat the proper Appellate Authority would dispose of the appeal filed by thepetitioner in accordance with law if the matter is remitted back to him for disposalin accordance with law. She also points out to me that so far the petitioner isconcerned, the order imposing on him the punishment was passed by the Commissioner, and therefore, the appropriate Appellate Authority would be the Administrator of the Corporation who is a higher authority than the Commissioner. ( 8 ) ON consideration of the submissions made by the Counsel and on goingthrough the records of the case, I am satisfied that the Commissioner whofunctioned as the Disciplinary Authority in case of the petitioner also sat over theappeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order and disposed of the saidappeal preferred against his own order as the Appellate Authority. This action onthe part of the Commissioner functioning both as the Disciplinary Authority as alsothe Appellate Authority ex-fade cannot be sustained in law inasmuch as thecommissioner could not have acted as the Appellate Authority against his ownorder. It is well settled that justice should not also be done, but also seem to be done. ( 9 ) SINCE there is an error apparent on the face of the records and also violationof the principles of natural justice in disposing of the appeal filed by the petitioner,it is not necessary for me to examine the issues raised with regard to the legality ofthe order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. I am also not accordingly calledupon at this stage to examine and answer the issue that is raised before me withregard to the competency of the Commissioner to act as the Disciplinary Authorityof the petitioner which is also raised in the appeal petition filed before the Appellateauthority. ( 10 ) ON the basis of the aforesaid findings, I am of the opinion, that the orderpassed by the Appellate Authority is liable to set aside and quashed, which I herebydo. ( 10 ) ON the basis of the aforesaid findings, I am of the opinion, that the orderpassed by the Appellate Authority is liable to set aside and quashed, which I herebydo. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority is remittedback to the Administrator of the Corporation who shall deal with the appeal filedby the petitioner and dispose of the same by a reasoned order in accordance withlaw at an early date and in no case later than three months from the date of receiptof a copy of this order. ( 11 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks that the petitioner may beallowed to take up additional grounds to the grounds already taken in his appealpetition to which the learned Counsel for the respondents has, on instructions,submitted that she has no objection to the aforesaid prayer. ( 12 ) ,. In the light of the aforesaid statements I also order that the petitioner maytake up additional grounds in addition to the grounds already taken in his appealpetition which shall be filed before the Appellate Authority within a period of threeweeks from today. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petitionstands allowed to the extent indicated above. Parties to bear their own costs.